# No big deal, right? She wasn't your daughter **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 18, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194 "2009-10-18T02:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/61 "2009-10-20T03:12:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It took the victim four years to get to this point. She was denied her day in court for 4 years. The Franken Amendment is not about the right to appeal anyway, so it’s just a red herring to keep throwing out there. > > Why do you want to give my money to a company that would behave this way? That’s the question. Behave in what way? Insisting on impanelling arbitrators? Honestly, what do you think goes on at an arbitration panel? Three mostly former judges or current attorneys donning on their satanic best and reenacting the end of _Rosemary’s Baby_? HAIL SATAN!! HAIL SATAN!! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/62 "2009-10-20T03:23:59Z")
Well obviously one thing that goes on is the attempt to deny rape victims a day in court and prevent them from talking about it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/63 "2009-10-20T03:27:06Z")
All snark aside: Do you know what arbitration is? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/64 "2009-10-20T03:29:44Z")
Gang rape is a felony. Halliburton/KBR used its employment agreement to cover up a felony. This is obscene. Do you REALLY want corporate contracts to cover up felonies? How about if Halliburton/KBR put out a contract on your life? Will you still hide behind your artificial construct and claim it falls under the contract? US law has long held that it still counts for US citizens when they are offshore. That’s why we can’t bribe foreign officials. And it should be why we cannot commit offenses against US laws, even when in a virtually-lawless land. An arbitration board is NOT a court of law. Its rulings are limited and only affect the accused regarding his contract. To compare that with a US court of law is preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/65 "2009-10-20T03:31:23Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > All snark aside: Do you know what arbitration is? Of course. Do you think that gang rape is something that should fall under a binding arbitration agreement? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/66 "2009-10-20T03:32:47Z")
Also, how about murder? What’s the line? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/67 "2009-10-20T03:45:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Of course. Do you think that gang rape is something that should fall under a binding arbitration agreement? She’s suing KBR for gang-rape? :dubious: Of course she isn’t. She’s suing them for (I presume) false imprisonment, IIED, negligent hiring and sexual harassment. The latter can, and often is, handled by arbitration panelists. The first three are torts outside of the employment contract, and _ **no court hereto has compelled their submission to arbitration.** _ KBR appealed the trial court’s decision to that effect and the Fifth Circuit affirmed (I suppose it is hear where you will shriek “Justice delayed is justice denied” and prefer to speak out of both sides of you mouth–avenging Jones’ right to the courthouse door while simultaneously barring it to those horrid bugbears, corporations). ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/68 "2009-10-20T03:48:26Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Gang rape is a felony. Halliburton/KBR used its employment agreement to cover up a felony. This is obscene. Do you REALLY want corporate contracts to cover up felonies? How about if Halliburton/KBR put out a contract on your life? Will you still hide behind your artificial construct and claim it falls under the contract? > > US law has long held that it still counts for US citizens when they are offshore. That’s why we can’t bribe foreign officials. And it should be why we cannot commit offenses against US laws, even when in a virtually-lawless land. > > An arbitration board is NOT a court of law. Its rulings are limited and only affect the accused regarding his contract. To compare that with a US court of law is preposterous. No. I think there’s a lot not to love about arbitration. But I think piecemeal, desultory alterations to our structural jurisprudence regarding the administration of justice–and it is not only that, but also accompanied by hysterical fever-dreams about how voting against these changes is a vote for gang-rape–is even unlovelier. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/69 "2009-10-20T03:50:49Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > She’s suing KBR for gang-rape? :dubious: > > Of course she isn’t. She’s suing them for (I presume) false imprisonment, IIED, negligent hiring and sexual harassment. The latter can, and often is, handled by arbitration panelists. The first three are torts outside of the employment contract, and _ **no court hereto has compelled their submission to arbitration.** _ KBR appealed the trial court’s decision to that effect and the Fifth Circuit affirmed (I suppose it is hear where you will shriek “Justice delayed is justice denied” and prefer to speak out of both sides of you mouth–avenging Jones’ right to the courthouse door while simultaneously barring it to those horrid bugbears, corporations). So the answer is yes, you think gang rape should be covered by secret arbitration. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/70 "2009-10-20T03:51:06Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > An arbitration board is NOT a court of law. Its rulings are limited and only affect the accused regarding his contract. To compare that with a US court of law is preposterous. All snark aside: Do you know what the precedential value of trial court opinions are? They are limited and only affect the, ahem, parties (we don’t call them “the accused” in civil court) regarding their contract. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/71 "2009-10-20T03:51:51Z")
still better than secret arbitration. Why do you want to give my money to these pigs? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/72 "2009-10-20T03:52:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So the answer is yes, you think gang rape should be covered by secret arbitration. Nope, Dio. Nobody thinks that. But Roger Ailes sure is impressed with you. ETA: Speaking of Fox News, it’s by now pretty apparent that you’re not really knowledgeable about this area of the law, nor are you interested in learning about it, especially if it challenges your partisan preconceptions. So, like our Prez and Fox News, I’m kicking you out of the conversation. I won’t be engaging any more of your posts on this topic. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/73 "2009-10-20T03:54:42Z")
That’s a might impressive pile of lawyer shit there, but at the bottom, it’s about a company hding gang rape and denying a victim her day in court. Who do you think you’re bullshitting here? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/74 "2009-10-20T04:04:13Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > She’s suing them for (I presume) false imprisonment, IIED, negligent hiring and sexual harassment. The latter can, and often is, handled by arbitration panelists. The first three are torts outside of the employment contract, and _ **no court hereto has compelled their submission to arbitration.** _ If the arbitration clause is going to be overruled by a court anyway, why does a company bother to put it in a contract? Why did they appeal the original ruling against them? You seem to be arguing that existing law is cut-and-dried as to what can be arbitrated and what can’t. So, why should the government award contracts to a company that would waste four years of the court’s time fighting a well-established law they aren’t going to win? And that’s in addition to the moral arguments and the actual crimes committed. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/75 "2009-10-20T04:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I do recall reading about this when the story first broke. I think part of my reaction was, “… and why are we still doing business with this company?” I’m happy there’s a Senator who reacts to these things the same way, but can actually do something about it. The gummint still does business with this company because of connections. I mean, it’s not like they were the lowest bidder or anything… ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/76 "2009-10-20T04:19:32Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > If the arbitration clause is going to be overruled by a court anyway, why does a company bother to put it in a contract? Why did they appeal the original ruling against them? You seem to be arguing that existing law is cut-and-dried as to what can be arbitrated and what can’t. So, why should the government award contracts to a company that would waste four years of the court’s time fighting a well-established law they aren’t going to win? > > And that’s in addition to the moral arguments and the actual crimes committed. The employment discrimination/sexual harassment related claims will proceed to arbitration. For claims arising out of a contract with a valid arbitration clause, federal policy (since 1925) _is_ pretty cut-and-dried: arbitration is favored. The intentional torts, however, were not included in the subject matter of the employment contract and, thus, there is no arbitration of them to be had. As far as why did it take so long? I don’t have the trial transcript. You have to imagine though, the facts are _sui generis_, I can’t imagine that there was much prior case law on all fours with the case at bar. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/77 "2009-10-20T04:48:15Z")
So it should be no big deal for companies to meet the provisions of this amendment and still qualify for government contracts. It’s one more reason for them to do what the law will force them to do eventually, anyway. I have no problem with the government awarding contracts to companies that willingly obey the law, and withholding them from companies that have to be dragged tooth-and-nail into living up to their legal obligations. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/78 "2009-10-20T04:51:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose a senator opposed gang rape, and even opposed forcing civil redress for gang rape be part of binding arbitration, but still believed that other claims, like general sexual harassment, should be settled by arbitration if the company and employee agreed to that term. > > Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims, including simple claims of sexual harassment, what should that senator do? That senator should argue that the legislation is overly broad in scope and note that his opposition is based on said overly broad scope. He should not announce that he’s voting against the amendment because it’s “a political attack directed at Halliburton”, as Jeff Sessions (R-Hell) did. If you (or anyone else) can show me where any of the thirty nay voters raised your argument, rather than lamely suggesting that the amendment represents a witch hunt against Halliburton, I will personally withhold my scorn for said Senator(s) and maybe work up a little extra for the others. Incidentally, I know this is the Pit and all, but let’s look at the [actual text](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111uAPzpq:e0:) of the amendment, shall we? > [@](#): > > SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows: > > ``` > On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: > > Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. > > ``` So the amendment prohibits federal contractors from requiring their employees or independent contractors to submit to arbitration only in Title VII claims or torts relating to sexual assault or harassment. Curiously, these are, as far as I can tell, the exact grounds on which Jamie Leigh Jones’ suit was based. In other words, the amendment could hardly have been any more narrow in scope if it said, “oh, and only for Jamie Leigh Jones. Everyone else is fucked.” Side question: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not mention independent contractors, only employees. Has it been interpreted to cover independent contractors as well? > [@](#): > > The gummint still does business with this company because of connections. I mean, it’s not like they were the lowest bidder or anything… Well, since they were the _only_ bidder, I guess technically they were the lowest bidder. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/79 "2009-10-20T05:04:32Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I seem to recall a story about a certain series of images supposedly from a video of an Iraqi woman being gang-raped by U.S. troops being circulated by the Boston Globe and CBS News. It later turned out to be complete bullshit, the photos actually taken from a porn movie (which would have been obvious to anyone who knew that our troops in Iraq do not wear obsolete BDU uniforms in the “Woodland” pattern besides.) The brazen fraud was originally posted on the website of an “AZTLAN” group (Mexican supremacists and deluded crackpots) yet that didn’t stop people from taking it seriously and making a big fuss over it. > > If nobody gives a shit about that, why did I hear about it? Why was it posted on the SDMB? Why did two major news sources run with it? Might want to start taking gingko or something, because your memory is faulty. Somebody [posted a link to the story/pictures in the middle of a thread about actual pictures of US soldiers raping captives](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519180&highlight=aztlan&page=2), and nobody took them seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/80 "2009-10-20T05:16:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose a senator opposed gang rape, and even opposed forcing civil redress for gang rape be part of binding arbitration, but still believed that other claims, like general sexual harassment, should be settled by arbitration if the company and employee agreed to that term. > > Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims, including simple claims of sexual harassment, what should that senator do? > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Not to pick on TWDuke, but one of the 30 could have offered an amendment if they thought Franken’s treatment was too broad, though it seemed to me to be reasonably narrowly crafted. Furthermore: 1) You can offer an amendment to an amendment, right? This is a genuine question. 1. FTR, the prohibited activities were in TWDuke’s helpful post: “…subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” This doesn’t seem especially broad to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194.md?page=5)